Objectivity in Journalism: Ethical Requirement or Impediment?

Journalists have long been thought of as simple reporters

of reality - they go out into the world, see what is
happening, and straightforwardly relay that information
to the public. Stephen J. A. Ward, a media ethicist and
founding director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison, refers to this
traditional conception of journalism as “the professional
objective model” where journalists are expected to
“provide unvarnished facts in a very neutral manner”
(Alter, 2019). However, since popularity in partisan news
outlets and opinion-based op-eds or talk shows has risen
dramatically in the last several decades, the traditional
view of journalism as only a neutral transfer of facts has Fred Kearney / Unsplash / Modified
recently come under scrutiny. While some welcome a new understanding of journalism, one
which allows for the inclusion of a journalist’s personal voice, others believe eschewing the
ideals of objectivity and neutrality is dangerous.

Despite assumptions that the professional objective model has always been the standard of
journalism, Matthew Pressman, an assistant professor of journalism at Seton Hall University
and the author of On Press: The Liberal Values That Shaped the News, provides a history of the
news media which reveals this assumption to be far from true. He explains that at their
inception, American newspapers were actually “proudly partisan,” but after a long series of
mergers and closings in the 1920s, surviving paper companies had to change this approach
in favor of appealing to a wider audience. Because “overt partisanship in the news pages
would alienate large parts of the target audience,” journalists soon adopted neutral voices in
their reporting so they could sell more papers and keep their businesses open (Pressman,
2019).

Though the country is not facing the same economic hardships as it was back then, the same
argument can be made today that appealing to a broader audience is ultimately desirable -
not just to keep a news company afloat, but to provide a space where broad sections of the
public can receive the exact same information and use it to form their own interpretation of
events. Even if it hasn’t been the standard forever, those who hold the professional objective
model in high regard nonetheless believe it is one we should keep because “the injection of
opinion and insinuation deprives viewers and readers of a neutral set of facts upon which to
make their own decisions and opinions” (Solomon, 2018). In other words, for a journalist to
include their own voice is to risk exerting influence over their audience, whereas the
publication of “only facts” allows for the consumers to make judgements for themselves, not
be told what to think by a reporter. As journalist George Reedy used to tell his students before
his passing: “You don’t use a bullhorn filled with opinion and emotion when a flashlight’s
illumination of facts will do” (Solomon, 2018).

1 | www.mediaethicsinitiative.org
Given recent advancements in technology, these points may be even more consequential
today than they were before the 1920s. As most Americans now own a smart device, have
access to news coverage 24/7, and even have the ability to communicate with strangers
online, supplying unbiased coverage could be the best way to encourage dialogue among
diverse people. In fact, the casual acceptance of non-objective journalism may already be
negatively affecting civil discourse and citizen unity, evidenced by the proliferation of echo
chambers on social media. As people engage in confirmation bias, seeking out comforting
partisan news pages on sites like Facebook, they only see one-sided stories and engage only
with members of that community who already share the same opinions. Thus, rather than
seeking out neutral stories and connecting with people unlike themselves, they become
entrenched in their beliefs and estranged from others. Perhaps if biased journalism didn’t
exist, neither would such technology-fueled polarization.

In contrast, there are those who believe strict objectivity should not be a priority in
journalism. On a philosophical level, it has been argued that neutrality or objectivity in
judgment doesn’t actually exist and therefore is an impossible standard to meet. Regardless
of their profession, reporters are still human beings who have unique experiences and stakes
in political processes. To be held to a level of superhuman objectivity is unfair for anyone, but
perhaps even more concerning for minority journalists reporting on issues that affect them
directly. As trans reporter Lewis Wallace has argued: “I can’t be neutral or centrist in a debate
over my own humanity” (Li, 2020). Even when news appears to be objective, freelance writer
Jack Mirkinson urges consumers to “look at the questions people ask [or] the stories people
choose to write. All of these things are inherently suffused with opinion and political
judgment” even if the journalist doesn’t outright put forth their beliefs (Li, 2020).

Moreover, the professional objective model is said to be problematic on a practical level as

well. The expectation to only report facts essentially reduces a journalist to a stenographer
and may even deprive the audience of additional knowledge they need to make an informed
judgement (Pressman, 2019). Even professional practices concerning opinions and accounts
runs into trouble when it reaches for objectivity because it can “give false equivalence to
ideas that do not deserve equal amounts of time” (Driftwood, 2016). As Christopher Meyers
notes:

Truthful journalism establishes the context that makes accurate facts meaningful by
discerningly providing multiple perspectives and by recognizing that a strict
adherence to balance – in the sense of giving equal weight and credence to all sides
on a contentious issue – can mislead more than inform. See, for example, coverage of
climate change in which equal space is given to deniers (Meyers, 2020).

Allegra Hobbs, a staff writer for Study Hall, further argues that the question of what deserves
to be covered in journalism can be exacerbated by unequal power dynamics, saying: “There
is no such thing as journalistic objectivity, and attempts to maintain it often result in

2 | www.mediaethicsinitiative.org
reporting that is overly generous to the powerful” (Li, 2020). In this sense, to simply report
what powerful people say and do, without providing context or analysis, only “lets the public
be imposed on by the charlatan with the most brazen front” (Pressman, 2019). If those who
advocate for the professional objective model are correct that the public is at risk of influence
when reading reporter opinions, why wouldn’t they be equally at risk of influence by the
words of those being reported on?

Overall, perhaps the ethical debate surrounding objectivity in journalism is impossible to

solve because, in its current form, it is unclear and misguided. Kamrin Baker, editor in chief
of The Gateway, argues that the focus should not be on neutrality, but on transparency, saying:
“As long as journalists are transparent about their experience when disseminating
information, there should be no shame in being equal parts human and Fourth Estate” (Li,
2020). On a similar note, in his book Ethical Journalism in a Populist Age: The Democratically
Engaged Journalist, Ward suggests that objectivity itself is not the problem, but where it is
expected to be positioned, asserting: “Journalists are advocates for dialogic democracy…
[they] are in the business of advocating for a certain type of society. How are we objective
then? We’re objective not in our goals; we’re objective in our methodology” (Alter, 2019). In
the end, what is clear is that as communication technologies become more advanced,
disinformation spreads, and polarization increases in the United States, the truth of our very
reality will become more contested. As the very idea of what a fact is comes into question,
American journalists will continue to face scrutiny for what (some of) the public deems
unobjective, biased reporting.

Discussion Questions:

1. What are the central values in tension when debating the merit of journalism’s
professional objective model?
2. How might you approach the concern of neutrality when covering stories on topics
in which certain simple or complex facts are in dispute by different parties (such as
the existence of climate change)?
3. Do you agree or disagree that objectivity is possible to achieve? If not, do you see
any value in attempting it anyway? What are the risks of maintaining an ideal of
objectivity, and what are the risks of giving it up?
4. Freelance culture writer Rebecca Long has said: “If ‘being neutral’ means obscuring
facts to make hard truths more palatable for readers, it isn't worth it to me” (Li,
2020). What is your reaction to this quote? How does “hard truth” compare to “the
truth”?

Further Information:

Alter, Isaac. (2019, April 2). Populist Times and the Perils of ‘Neutral’ Journalism: A
Q&A with Media Ethicist Stephen J. A. Ward. Center for Journalism Ethics. Available

3 | www.mediaethicsinitiative.org
 at: https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2018/11/29/populist-times-and-the-perils-
of-neutral-journalism-a-qa-with-media-ethicist-stephen-j-a-ward/

Driftwood Staff. (2016, August 17). Journalism Is Not, Should Not Be Neutral.
Driftwood. Available at: https://unodriftwood.com/628/opinion/journalism-will-
not-should-not-be-neutral/

Li, Sara. (2020, March 6). These Young Journalists Say Neutrality Isn't an Option for
Them. Teen Vogue. Available at: www.teenvogue.com/story/objectivity-neutrality-
not-option-some-journalists

Meyers, Christopher. (2020). Partisan News, the Myth of Objectivity, and the
Standards of Responsible Journalism. Journal of Media Ethics, 1-15.

Pressman, M. (2019, February 25). Journalistic Objectivity: Origin, Meaning and Why
It Matters. Time. Available at: https://time.com/5443351/journalism-objectivity-
history/

Solomon, J. (2018, November 23). The Greatest Threat to American Journalism: The
Loss of Neutral Reporting. The Hill. Available at: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-
house/417921-the-greatest-threat-to-american-journalism-the-loss-of-neutral-
reporting

Authors:

Kat Williams & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.

Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
July 15, 2020

This case study is supported by funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media
Ethics Initiative and the Center for Media Engagement. They can be used in unmodified PDF
form for classroom or educational settings. For use in publications such as textbooks,
readers, and other works, please contact the Center for Media Engagement.

4 | www.mediaethicsinitiative.org